'The invisible man' movie review

“When Cecilia’s abusive ex takes his own life and leaves her his fortune, she suspects his death was a hoax. As a series of coincidences turn lethal, Cecilia works to prove that she is being hunted by someone nobody can see.”

— imdb

‘The invisible man’ is written and directed by Leigh Whannel who wrote the original Saw movies and is now firmly in the directors chair for this and his previous outing ‘Upgrade’. I initially caught a short ‘TV SPOT’ advertising the movie a while back and I really wasn’t drawn to it at all.

Thankfully the movie is a lot better than the TV SPOT for it. A twisted take on ‘Sleeping with the enemy’ it opens on Cecilia (Elizebeth Moss) as she tries to escape the clutches of her abusive husband. Silence playing a key role as she creeps around her husbands impressive mansion in her bare feet trying desperately to be quiet. It’s a creepy little scene and foreshadows what is to come after.

Cecilia is damaged by the relationship and slowly tries pick the pieces back up of her shattered psyche with the help of her friend and police officer James (Aldis Hodge). When Cecilia is notified that her Husband has taken his own life and she is entitled to five million dollar endowment from her late husbands estate she is invited to meet with Tom (Michael Dorman) her husbands estranged brother.

From here the movie is all about the slow deconstruction of Cecilia’s mind as she is seemingly haunted from the grave by her late husband. To say anymore would spoil the movie suffice to say that there are a handful of very effective scenes. My advice would be to see the movie without looking at any trailers.

Produced by Blumhouse pictures with an estimated 7 million budget its a mostly effective partially self contained movie. Not everything is perfect nor does it make perfect sense but when you are in the flow of the movie you don’t really pay too much attention.

It’s all about Elizabeth Moss’ performance as the fragile Cecilia. She makes her sympathetic and likeable. A trodden upon wife who happened to have the misfortune to hook up with a husband whose only desire was to control her completely. From her sense of dress to her hair style and everything else in between.

Even though the ending is telegraphed earlier than intended it is still enjoyable and a fitting conclusion to the movie. Overall worth a watch.

Bad Boys for life Movie Review

MD Movie review blog - Bad boys for life

“The Bad Boys Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett are back together for one last ride in the highly anticipated Bad Boys for Life.”

— imdb

The 80’s and 90’s were chock full of buddy cop movies, from Lethal weapon to Tango and Cash and every other flavour in between. Some we’re excellent (Lethal Weapon) while others just hopped on the popularity train for a quick buck.

It’s a seminal genre that gets rehashed every once in a while and occasionally comes up trumps. I remember very little of the original Bad Boys other than Michael bay directed it and it had a lot of low angle slow mo shots. Produced by Don Simpson and Gerry Bruckheimer who created a glossy action picture empire in the 80’s & 90’s with high concept stories, buddy comedy and multiple (Ghost) screenwriters.

Bad Boys for Life in a lot of ways is a throwback to a 90’s movie, trawling out action movie cliches such as Pepto Bismal chugging Captain screaming at his subordinate police officers or cops getting ‘too old for this shit’ and needing to retire. We’ve essentially seen it all before story wise. In this regard Bad boys for life offers very little in terms of ingenuity. Once again its drug lords against cops with retirement thrown into the mix and a pretty obvious ’twist’ that is telegraphed from about two minutes into the picture.

The movie relies almost exclusively on the chemistry between Lawrence and Smith. They have a likeable appeal, slipping easily into their personas like twenty years hasn’t passed. The only caveat being that Lawrence seems to have worn the mileage a little heavier than his counterpart Smith. It is noticeable that Lawrence doesn’t feature as much in the action stakes, taking a somewhat more leisurely approach favouring him to deliver one liners instead.

Occasionally the movie is a little flat unnecessarily doling out exposition and needless multiple phone calls essentially saying the same things over and over. The action scenes aren’t as crisp or interesting as the first movie, retreading the same territory but handled with less aplomb.

Not to say that the movie is bad it isn’t. There are moments of banter between Lawrence and Smith that are funny. It moves relatively fast and doesn’t overstay its welcome. But will it be considered a classic of the genre ten, twenty years from now? It’s unlikely. As a diversion for two hours you could probably do worse but don’t go in expecting anything more than that.

'the gentlemen’ movie review

The gentlemen - MD movie review blog

“A British drug lord tries to sell off his highly profitable empire to a dynasty of Oklahoma billionaires.”

— imdb

‘The Gentlemen’ is Guy Ritchie returning to his gangster roots again. A gentrified cousin to ‘Lock stock’ and ‘Snatch’ it features once again a motley crew of eccentric characters, double deals and a sleight of hand.

Opening with ‘Fletcher’ (played by Hugh Grant) a sleazy investigative journalist, who seizes an opportunity to try to blackmail Mickey Pearson (Matthew Mc Conaughey) for a cool twenty million regaling his ‘Fixer’ Ray (Charlie hunnam) about Mickey’s clandestine drug business which he intends to air publicly on the front page of a sleazy rag headed by the ruthless editor ‘Big Dave’ (Eddie Mardan).

Told in a slightly muddled flashback we follow Mickey and Ray as they try to negotiate an uneasy sale of their ‘weed business’ to ‘Matthew’ (Jeremy Strong) when a young gangster called ‘Dry eye’ (Henry Golding) interferes causing mayhem.

There are quite a few subplots to the movie. Initially when we open with Fletcher (Grant) telling us in unnecessarily Tarantino-esque dialogue about his master plan I thought I was going to be in for a very long viewing experience. Charlie Hunnam really didn’t inspire me with confidence either, his performance in these early scenes slightly wooden, unsure himself of what exact way to play his character. It is fortunate for the movie that he eventually settles into the role and gives a decent performance. Grant on the other hand plays his socks off, enjoying the chance to play a vile newsman especially timely considering his recent run-ins with newspaper publications.

The dialogue exchanges here giving the movie an unintentional 90’s feel copying Tarantino’s lilt without his timing or sense of style. McConaughey fairs better but it is an easy role for him, never stretching him in any way, he glides through the movie giving him a somewhat uninspired if enjoyable character. The same could be said for Michelle Dockery who gets the least to do and is only there to be used as a ‘female in jeopardy’ otherwise her character is forgettable and could have been played by anyone. Indeed it could be said that their relationship together gets somewhat sidelined and underserved.

Not to say that the movie is bad, it’s not. It’s an enjoyable caper if somewhat muddled at points. The eccentric side characters making far more interesting viewing no more so than Colin Farrell’s ‘Coach’ who teaches boxing to a rag tag of borderline degenerates. His scenes are entertaining and witty, played with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

It sometimes, however, gives the feeling that the whole movie is a little incoherent as the main plot of the story gets somewhat sidelined in favour of more interesting things. Jeremy Strong’s character ‘Matthew’ a case in point where he had potential to be an interesting villain, he gets relegated and diffused to the point where he doesn’t seem very important at all. This gives the ending a somewhat anticlimactic feel.

Overall ‘The Gentlemen’ is an enjoyable movie. It’s not perfect nor would I say it is better than ‘Snatch’. It’s different but the same. A slightly less chaotic Ritchie gone are most of the speed ramping effects which I’m thankful for. A slightly more sedate entry into his ‘mockney’ crime filmography but enjoyable nonetheless.

'Knives out' movie review

Knives out poster - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A detective investigates the death of a patriarch of an eccentric, combative family.”

— IMDB

***WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD ***

Renowned novelist Harlon Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is found dead in his estate after his 85th birthday party. Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) a famous private detective is mysteriously hired to investigate the murder. Interviewing Thrombey’s kooky family one by one he is drawn into a whodunit where there are multiple suspects.

That last part is where I had the biggest problem with ‘Knives out’ - the ‘whodunit’ aspect - it’s pretty clear early on what happened in the ‘murder’. In fact the reveal is shown fairly early so you are essentially there to view how it all comes together. It’s whether you find this compelling or not will ultimately determine your enjoyment of the movie.

Marta (Ana de Armas) is a nurse who is taking care of Harlon, during one of their nightly routines Marta administers a mega dose of Morphine accidentally to Harlon. In her ensuing panic Harlon concocts a convoluted plan to try to save her from being a suspect. As a final act he slits his own throat before the morphine can take hold. Marta, now free from suspicion, is unwittingly roped into being Benoit Blanc’s sidekick as he investigates the murder. In the process she must try to hide herself as a suspect to protect her immigrant mother from deportation.

Ensemble pieces are notoriously difficult to get right ensuring every player gets his or her portion of run time. In this regard ‘Knives out’ fails. Personally, I felt a few of the players were criminally underused. Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson we’re given short shrift - never really considered suspects - only there to play out an infidelity side plot that really doesn’t go anywhere. Michael Shannon (Walt Thromby) Changes character on a whim to suit a plot device and make him seem more evil than he actually is. The other side characters we don’t really know or care about including the actual ‘real’ detectives investigating the murder itself.

As soon as Ransom (Chris Evens) appears on screen you know he is the murderer. Maybe it was the way he decided to play his character or perhaps the fact that the kooky grandmother whispers ‘Ransom you’re back again’ during the night of the murder was a bit of a giveaway. It is also pretty obvious that vials of morphine had been switched out from the get go. So it essentially becomes more about ‘why’ than ‘who’.

That is answered when we learn that Marta has been given all of Harlon’s fortune including the family estate. The family an unlikable bunch of self aggrandising misfits attuned to their own self importance. Wealth and prestige their undoing, they plot to have the will overturned by any means necessary.

At 2 hours 10 minutes Knives out is a little on the long side. Not really a ‘whodunit’ more a play on a Poirot mystery where the mystery part is somewhat jettisoned in favour of mildly entertaining romp with eccentric characters. Mention must be given to Danial Craig (Benuit Blanc) who uses an over the top southern accent that quickly becomes irritating to the point where it takes you out of the movie.

Since the movie is billed as a ‘whodunit’, I personally think it failed on that score. Plot contrivances used then forgotten: Dogs barking for only one person, noisy staircase, Granny with dementia, Marta’s ability to feel viscosity of morphine etc etc

Not that I hated the movie, I didn’t. It’s what I would term a Sunday afternoon picture: easily forgettable and just there to pass the time. It had potential to be interesting but in the end it was decidedly ‘Meh’.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our reviews. Go on, you know you want to.

Star wars: the rise of Skywalker movie review

Star wars - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“The surviving Resistance faces the First Order once more in the final chapter of the Skywalker saga.”

— IMDB

The good news is Star Wars: the rise of Skywalker is marginally better than the last jedi (which isn't saying much). The bad news is the movie is soulless and made by a corporation more interested in turning Star Wars into Marvel than creating a great movie franchise. It attempts to pander to fans in a really uncomfortable fashion where more actually means less.

For my viewing there was a mini documentary screened before the movie that played heavily on nostalgia with archive footage from the first three movies including outtakes and interviews from set. Turns out this documentary was more entertaining than the actual movie itself. Making you realise what the first movie had above everything else: passion. Idealistic young movie makers trying to make something interesting and special. It is heavily counterpointed with the hallow money making venture witnessed after it. An exercise in story by committee, haphazardly trying to re-engineer a cohesive story from the poorly crafted ‘the last Jedi'. It's little wonder they jettisoned most of Rian Johnson's world, trying to right the ship and placate fans at the same time.

When we join the story - as slim a story as there is here - lord palpatine has apparently risen from the dead hidden away on ‘Excelon', a type of sith colony creating legions of other sith's as well as thousands of star destroyers under the unimaginative title of ‘the last order'. Kylo Ren is instructed by palpatine to kill Rey to assume control of the new army. Meanwhile Rey is being trained by Leia in the ways of the force - a strange turn of events since we had no clue Leia was a Jedi before this despite her Mary Poppins flight through space in the last Jedi - she is ‘force' visited by Kylo Ren who controls her training Robot firing blaster rounds at her. This leads Rey to abandon her training to destroy Kylo Ren. Her amiable sidekicks join her and along the way they embark on a dark adventure that will see them come face to face with an ancient foe.

Visually the rise of Skywalker is impressive. It looks, for the most part every bit of 150 million. It's biggest flaw besides some really badly scripted dialogue is the fact we don't care about any of the characters in this universe. It doesn't help that every exchange between characters on screen is either exposition or decidedly unfunny quips. Even the actors I feel are phoning it in, weary by the same exchanges scene after scene.

It gives the impression that the movie was 'made up as they went along' with scenes haphazardly thrown together and a plot that contradicts itself.

Rey is now super human capable of controlling space craft, leaping hundreds of feet in the air and anything else the messy plot requires of her to fill gaps with. When there is no grounding for a character literally anything goes. The same can be said for Palpatine who has powers enviable of a god despite his cataracts and ailing health. It is world building by committee and lazily copying a trend that Marvel movies have adopted having to one up themselves to the detriment of tension and excitement. To the point we don't care when one more Lazer battle explodes onto screen.

It's contrived to showcase effects, jettisoning human interaction and passion leaving a hollow empty soul of a movie that only sometimes entertains. When all has been said and done Star Wars: the rise of Skywalker is a messy exercise in excess and it is a lesser movie for it.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'Alien' movie review

Alien poster - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“After a space merchant vessel perceives an unknown transmission as a distress call, its landing on the source moon finds one of the crew attacked by a mysterious lifeform, and they soon realize that its life cycle has merely begun.”

— imdb

I came to the party late watching ‘Alien’ initially in the early 90’s having watched ‘Aliens’ many years before it and thoroughly enjoying it’s action and tension. Perhaps this coloured my opinion as I was initially a little underwhelmed by ‘Alien’ when I first seen it. I did appreciate it’s dense visual tapestry something all Ridley Scott’s movie’s have in common but it lacked something in terms of character - a type of distancing approach which counterpointed ‘Aliens’ in your face aesthetics. (By that stage there had been any number of inferior ‘copies’.) Indeed you could say that the characters themselves are mostly one-dimensional bar Dallas and Ripley who play off one another with equal love and tension.

What mostly got me was the sense of claustrophobia and gradual build up of tension. It practically drips with it. Every scene a mixture of elements and atmospherics. Light and darkness, smoke and hidden shadows. It is a potent mix designed to draw you into this grunge-filled world. No more so than in the final 20 minutes where you can literally feel the sweat dripping down Ripley’s face when she comes face to face with her nemesis. This scene would be less impactful had there not been such a long build up introducing mundane tasks and underlying tensions amongst the group of space truckers. The cinematography is brilliant, designed to be looked at on the biggest screen possible and perfectly captures the claustrophobic feel.

As a designer Ridley Scott is unparalleled. He has spawned many copy cats but none have been quite able to match him in terms of aesthetics. ‘Alien’ was considered a hackneyed B-movie by executives and perhaps it could have been in another directors hands. Indeed Tom Skerrit was initially skeptical about the project citing issues with the budget. The initial budget for the project was projected at 4 million which gave you an idea of the thoughts of Fox executives. Make a low budget ‘Corman rip off’ and release it on the cheap to capitalise on the success of ‘Star wars’.

Ridley had other ideas creating a world filled with a terrifying monster from the twisted mind of H.R Giger. A creature that is silently menacing, stalking its prey in the shadows. The scene where Dallas is trapped in the airlocks a particular highlight.

Thankfully the budget increased and finally settled on 14 million. It’s small wonder what it would have been like had Fox not bought Ridley Scott’s vision for the project. What is quite clear is the fact that we wouldn’t be talking about the movie 40 years later nor have it appear on ‘best of’ lists.

Not that the movie doesn’t show the occasional minor flaw grown from the use of a man in a suit. Mostly these exchanges are clever punctuated by quick cutaways which hides the suit only occasionally can you see the alien in its entirety. But these are few and far between.

For the most part it is a slow burning ride, gradually building in tension and suspense. In space no-one can hear you scream.

Be social - follow us!

Rambo last blood movie review

Rambo last blood poster - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
Rambo must confront his past and unearth his ruthless combat skills to exact revenge in a final mission.”

— Imdb

The movie First Blood was one of the seminal action movies of the 80s. Directed by Ted Kochef it brought to life the character of John Rambo, a traumatized Vietnam vet shunned by society, spit upon and denounced. A seething ball of pent up aggression unchecked by a greedy army general whose killing machine has malfunctioned into a wandering hobo in search of a home and finding none.

The first outing a chilling indictment of Vietnam a war no-one wanted, scarring the lives of those who entered it leaving them shell shocked and weary misfits. Stallone's portrayal of Rambo a career highlight.

We zoom forward 40 years or so later to Rambo: last blood a pale, almost unrecognisable photocopy of a Rambo movie. An ultra violent cartoon with some genuinely shoddy acting and unconvincing direction.

Here John Rambo is living a hermits existence at his father's ranch. Hiding himself bizarrely in a set of underground tunnels constructed around his desert home living like a tunnel rat. In this outing Stallone is subdued, seething with barely contained anger, traumatised by visions of the dead kept at bay by a cocktail of prescription drugs and clean honest graft. His love for his pseudo daughter Gabriel played by Yvette monral is tested when she crosses the border into Mexico to find her estranged father.

While there she is Groomed and sold by her supposed friend Giselle to a ruthless gang of traffickers who kidnap Gabrielle, forcing her into a life of coerced prostitution.

Once Rambo learns of this he must embark on one final mission to find and retrieve his adoptive daughter. Things however, do not go to plan finding himself initially outgunned and beaten to bloody pulp to be strangely 'let go' by these gangsters, branding him instead like cattle. Chillingly they inform him his 'daughter' will also pay a similar price and leave him to rot in the barren streets of Mexico.

Gabriel meanwhile is being hooked on Heroin and forced into grisly sexual acts with nameless patrons in the dingiest brothal ever invented. John Rambo must unleash his inner warrior once again and rescue her.

In a bloody-minded rescue Rambo escapes with Gabriel to have her die of an overdose setting in motion revenge of the bloodiest kind.

Contrived and at times poorly executed Rambo: last blood is a mixed bag filled with weirdly stilted acting and ultra violent deaths.

Initially the concept of a ‘Rambo western’ was intriguing but this concept was jettisoned in deference to a clichéd gangster setup and contrived story beats. When all is said and done Rambo: last blood isn't a very good movie. It's a shameless cash in with strangely TV aesthetics; instead of a fitting end to a franchise we get a damp squib that fails to excite, going through the motions like the story itself ticking boxes until the blood-letting begins.

When the inevitable finale in the underground tunnels comes round there is some flashes of interest but it reeks of repetition. Once you've seen one gruesome death you've seen them all. Which is a shame because there was potential to make this sequence interesting and filled with tension.

Ultimately Rambo: last blood is forgettable. A less than adequate ending to a classic character who was given short shrift by a poorly written script and lifeless direction.

Be social - follow us!

The Irishman movie review

The irishman - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
A mob hitman recalls his possible involvement with the slaying of Jimmy Hoffa.
”

— Imdb

An understated and 'mature' Scorsese, gone are the crashing zooms of frenetic energy of youth in favour of control and precision mastering the best of both worlds savouring moments of character and humour, delivering a 'character study' of regret but not remorse echoing the phrase 'it is what it is'.

Its strength coming from the understated performances of DeNiro (Playing Frank Sheeran) and Pesci (Russel Bufalino) whose friendship spanning decades of quiet understanding and chilling understated menace. A simple almost wordless exchange meaning far more than anything that could be spoken. Pesci embodying a gentle underlying threat to his usual portrayal of manic sociopaths. It is a measured performance as is DeNiro’s who hasn't been better in a very long time. Neither performances are showy rather they ground themselves in melancholic strength underlying the truth that power isn't about who can scream the loudest.

Pacino plays Hoffa at his megalomaniac best, acting to his strengths as a brash overly confident control freak that never feels false. A pitch perfect performance that lends a frenetic energy counterpointing the control of DeNiro; a seemingly unlikely friendship that feels real and organic. A lunch time meeting between Hoffa and Provanzano (Stephen Graham) brilliant and darkly comedic, seething with underlying menace.

There are lots of little pockets of humour; Sheeran disposing of his revolver in his favourite spot in a river after a hit. It joining hundreds of others there he coolly states if they ever sent divers down there would be enough weapons found to ‘arm a small country’.

A cringe-worthy phone call between Sheeran (DeNiro) and Hoffa’s estranged wife perfectly encapsulates Sheeran’s Character: His awkwardness and apathy, struggling to communicate on any emotional level with her. He’s done a bad deed but he can’t be remorseful about it so he has to try to fake it.

Clocking in at around three and a half hours, there are patches where I felt the running time, particularly at the start. Perhaps that was due to certain de-aging scenes taking me out of the movie. Some were done really well and others just looked fake - in particular Pesci fares the worse of the two leads his digital make over leaping out at you to the point you’re paying more attention to his ‘digital face’ than what he’s actually saying. I couldn’t help but think what the movie could have been like in the 90s without digital interference and played for real.

Thankfully you settle into watching the movie, especially when Hoffa enters the fray. His manic energy a well needed boost to counterpoint the sedate even keel of Sheeran and Bufalino. When the trio do interact there is moments of magic highlighting why they are some of America’s greatest actors.

When all is said and done, ‘The Irishman’ is a great movie with a few slow patches but not enough to curb your enjoyment.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Terminator: Dark fate movie review

Terminator: dark fate - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Sarah Connor and a hybrid cyborg human must protect a young girl from a newly modified liquid Terminator from the future.”

— Imdb

I'm a huge fan of Terminator and Terminator 2. They we're ground breaking, had interesting stories and exciting action with characters you actually cared about. Now in its sixth outing Terminator: dark fate is a frustrating mess echoing these previous movies and plot, gender swapping this time in a lazy attempt at updating the franchise.

In this iteration Grace (Played by Mackensie Davis) is our lone warrior, an augment, sent back through time to protect Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes), a mexican worker who has no idea that she is the future savior of mankind.

There is a trend in attempting to rewrite existing franchises to shoe horn in female characters, who are woefully underwritten for political reasons and not because it makes for a great story. Take Dani Ramos for instants, her character is almost non-existent, a cipher, forceful but single dimensional. It perhaps didn’t help that I thought Natalia Reyes seemed a little out of her depth, lacking the spunk of Linda Hamilton, her turn bland and uninteresting.

Mackensie Davis doesn’t fare much better, hampered with stilted dialogue like ‘come with me or you’ll be dead in thirty seconds’ an obvious throwback to Kyle Reece’s ‘Come with me if you want to live’ only this time rote and contrived. The movie is chock full of throwbacks some that work and others not so much.

Much of the dialogue feels forced and without character. Scenes without action are tired, lacking in chemistry almost like Director Tim Miller had only a passing interest in them, preferring to focus on the action instead. Which leaves the characters exposed, Linda Hamilton struggling to revive the intensity of Terminator 2’s Sarah Connor, leaving a faded copy xeroxed until faintly recognisable. Which is a shame as she was a seminal female character of the 90s. In this she is given short shrift in favour of introducing new ‘characters’ that don’t really work. There is an uneasy alliance between the three that feels unnatural and forced. As a result the acting is laboured and devoid of chemistry.

When Arnold appears the movie picks up, his familiar turn as the T-800 a welcome (And funny) reprise even though his presence doesn’t really make much sense. In an opening prologue we witness (Spoiler alert) the T-800 gun down John Connor after they have supposedly saved man-kind from Skynet. Throwing the first two movies under the bus to reinvigorate the franchise in favour of female empowerment to the detriment of story and everything else. It feels badly contrived and Natalia Reyes performance doesn’t sell this idea at all effectively, seemingly miscast in her role. The story involved a bad case of word swapping, the world essentially the same, Skynet replaced by Legion, Dani Taking over from John Connor. You get the idea.

The action is frenetic but without tension or a distinct style. CGI overload, rinse and repeat. Gone are the physical effects bypassed in favour of acrobatic maneuvers that look completely fake. There isn’t a successive build up of escalating tension that is characteristic of the first and second Terminator movies. Now it is a desperate case of throwing as many things at the screen as possible in the hope that something sticks. None of the action scenes are particularly memorable or for that matter involving. Perhaps in part to the fact you don’t really engage with any of the characters - they don’t exist in that realm, cynically substituting male for female without introducing ‘character’ within them.

Overall a disappointing mess.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

The Laundromat movie review

the laundromat - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“When her idyllic vacation takes an unthinkable turn, Ellen Martin begins investigating a fake insurance policy.”

— Imdb

The laundromat is a difficult movie to like. From the very opening scene we are introduced to Mossack and Fonsacca, the duo owners of the law firm 'mossack fonsaca' famously embroiled in the Panama papers. Wearing dinner suits and preening for the camera like pantomime puppets I had the sinking feeling that I wasn't going to like this movie very much.

Gary Oldman hamming it up a storm with an over exaggerated German accent that becomes irritating very quickly is counterparted with Antonio Baderas (who incidentally fares better in the acting stakes) to treat the audience like morons as they explain bartering and the invention of money.

In this, one of many irritating, pretentious scenes makes for difficult viewing. Utilising a similar technique by The big short where Mossack and Fonsaca are our narrators into a world of greed and corruption. Stephen Soderberg has chosen to make a semi comedic and semi serious movie that is scattershot and ultimately uningaging. The story of the Panama papers and Mossack Fonsaca deserved better. It treats them almost as afterthoughts, demeaning the impact and lessening the seriousness of greed and corruption.

In short vignettes sprawling across the globe, the central character played by Meryl Streep, fails to have an insurance claim honoured after her husband is horrifically drowned in a boating accident. She sets out to investigate realising to her horror that the insurance company doesn't exist and is only a Shell company with a Po box listed in Panama.

From here the movie goes all over the place undoubtedly trying to mirror the Panama papers where it appeared that tax avoidance was rampant across the globe facilitated by greedy lawyers and bankers who honour only the almighty dollar. We travel to Nevis, China, Panama, Nevada and even briefly Mexico in a failed attempt to insinuate that drug lords got in on the act as well.

It's this scattershot approach that makes the whole movie feel disposable as we don't really know any of the characters and the link between the stories are tenuous.

By the time the Panama papers are released the movie has warn thin. Like it's preening narrators with their sparkling dinner jackets and false demeanor it's all surface and no substance. Despite a final rally by Meryl Streep with an impassioned call to arms in a fight to change tax laws in any meaningful way, it feels strangely tacked on.

With noble intentions and a story that truly needs to be told maybe now more than ever with greed and corruption still at all time high, the laundromat unfortunately isn't that movie. It's a pale photocopy and what's worse is it dances around the subject, treating it lightly like it's narrators, all sparkle and no depth.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

The Hidden (1987) Movie Review

the hidden - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Law abiding people suddenly become violent criminals. A cop and an FBI agent race for answers in this sci-fi thriller.”

— Imdb

Produced by New Line cinema who delivered classic movies like A nightmare on elm street and The lord of the rings trilogy, The Hidden is a mish-mash of different genres echoing films like Invasion of the body snatchers, Star Man and The Terminator.

We open in California where a stranger walks into a bank and coolly opens fire on security guards transporting money. Shown in blurry CCTV camera footage, the figure turns to camera after he has slain his victims peering at us the viewer, an insidious smile grows across his face before he turns the weapon on the CCTV camera obliterating it.

It’s a compelling opening. Turns out the figures name is Jack De fries (Chris Mulkey) and he is being pursued by police for a number of robberies. From here the movie launches into a car chase across town where Jack Defries is pursued by the police. Causing destruction along route, even shamelessly knocking over a wheel chair bound pedestrian all to the tune of 80s rock music. It’s fast paced with a slight tongue in cheek, nihilistic persona. Defries pictured as a cold faced killer, eagerly causing mayhem and destruction.

The chase ends with Defries being cornered by police. They open fire decimating Defries vehicle, sending him skyward in flames. Hideously burned he is transported to hospital.

Enter FBI agent Lloyd Gallagher played by Kyle MacLachlan who is teamed up with the straight-nosed no nonsense cop called Tom Beck played by Michael Nouri, who was supposedly set to play the character of Martin Riggs in Lethal weapon but chose to do this movie instead.

Together they visit the hospital to find that their victim has died. If you haven’t seen the movie before and don’t want to know any spoilers then stop reading now. But its fair to say that its pretty obvious from the get go where the movie goes.

Echoing invasion of the body snatchers the movie turns to SCI-FI/Horror mode as ‘The hidden’ inside Defries body transports itself to another host in the bed across from him. It’s a nicely grotesque sequence as this slug-like parasite enters his next victim through his mouth. Shot in stop animation, this sequence is a practical FX treat. Still highly effective and nicely handled.

With a new body to play with ‘The hidden’ goes on a spree gleefully killing if he needs to taking whatever it fancies from a Ferrari to a ghetto blaster, shamelessly ignorant to niceties of earth. We get the distinct feeling that this creature enters bodies to drain them of whatever life force is left, having to regularly change hosts when the current one becomes redundant.

The movie is very funny at times. There is a recurring Joke involving Gallagher and Alka seltzer that made me chuckle. At times its pitch black and others tongue in cheek. ‘The hidden’ changing into a stripper body gleefully shagging a john to death to take his car. It is rumored that the producers didn’t quite like Claudia Christian’s (who played Brenda the stripper) breast shape choosing to emphasize her ass in the clothing choices for the character. At one point her character wears a very revealing dress designed to show her derrière.

Switching tone easily, it never really becomes boring. Putting aside the fact that it was shot in the 80s which has some of that eras shooting style it still looks quite good. The action is constant more or less from the get go where countless die from bullet wounds. In a riff on the terminator, a lengthy action scene taking place in a police station where ‘the hidden’ riddled with bullets still keeps on going. Also In the musical score, with its pulsing electronic base trying to emulate Brad Fiedel’s iconic Terminator score.

The movie isn’t perfect but it is still worth a watch, even though many movies have been made now which use a similar approach. The police investigation scenes somewhat redundant as well as the occasional shoot out.

The practical effects are nicely handled, the slug-like creature a particular highlight. Not everything fx wise is perfect however, the exception the somewhat dodgy animated laser beam near the end of the movie.

Overall worth checking out. Enjoy!

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'Untouchable' Documentary review

untouchable - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A look at the rise and fall of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein featuring interviews with former colleagues and those who accused him of sexual misconduct.”

— imdb

Harvey Weinstein was on top of the world, a celebrated movie producer seemingly at the top of his game in the early 90s. An independent movie darling, willing to make movies others including studios wouldn’t touch. Under the Miramax banner they produced hit after hit , launching more than one movie stars and Directors career. But along with the glitz and glimmer of Hollywood there was a seedy underbelly of abuse and manipulation perpetuated by a sexual predator who wouldn’t take ‘No’ for an answer.

‘Untouchable’ recounts some of these cases, highlighting in detail the ordeals these women had to endure at the hands of ‘Weinstein’. It is difficult to hear, punctuated by pictures of Weinstein smiling for the camera, embracing these women like nothing had happened. The stories are harrowing and disgusting detailing coercion/bullying, assault and sexual assault.

Indeed at one point the Documentary shows the length Harvey went to to discredit these women hiring former a mossad-led agency called ‘Black Cube’ to target them. A low tactic to invalidate their stories with positive publicity shots showing their happiness with him. Air tight NDA agreements that painted them into a corner of complete silence. Coercion and bullying tactics. At the height of his ‘power’ it would take one phone call and that actress would never work again.

It is especially difficult when the industry itself is so cutthroat. To also deal with a megalomaniac who was so persistently predatory that saying no in itself was a difficult task. Even then saying no didn’t mean anything to Weinstein; another challenge to overcome, to conquer. Indeed it would seem, from his very skewed perspective, that these encounters we’re acceptable and condoned because it ‘happens all the time’ in the industry.

If that statement wasn’t shocking enough by itself it is the condoning of these actions by others in the industry who turned a blind eye that are truly abhorrent. Commerce taking precedent over humanity, decency and morality. In this regard it took Disney 12 years to part ways with Weinstein, taking his prized possession ‘Miramax’ in the deal in 2005. It is in this area that the documentary felt a little light, marginally highlighting those who we’re complicit in keeping this abuse quiet for so long while making boat loads of money in the process. Disney seemed to provide shelter for his actions, an unlimited check book and the power for him to be ‘untouchable’.

It is worth noting that only after Disney parted ways with Weinstein did any of these allegations get to see the light of day even then it wasn’t an easy task. Ronan Farrow breaking an explosive story in ‘The New Yorker in 2017 which included a recording of a ‘sting’ operation by New York police headed by Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez where Weinstein is recorded in their second encounter - the first he allegedly touched her breasts - in this he is trying to coerce her to watch him take a shower in his hotel room.

What’s highlighted is the deep shame that these women felt that somehow they were complicit in these actions and the stigma of being branded a survivor and the ‘machine’ at work to keep them silent forever. It is worth noting that the use of an NDA to hide sexual assault is disturbing to say the least. That those in power can use this mechanism to keep abuse away from the public eye is staggering. In the end I can see a more comprehensive documentary being made on this subject which goes behind the scenes exposing the lies.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Cobra (1986) movie review

‘Cobra’ poster, 1986 - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A tough-on-crime street cop must protect the only surviving witness to a strange murderous cult with far reaching plans.”

— imdb

In 1980s Sylvester Stallone was arguably the biggest star in Hollywood at the time. After a string of box office successes he appeared to have the Midas touch. Signed to originally star in the Beverly Hills cop movie, Stallone utilising a clause in his contract rewrote the screenplay making it more action orientated and changing the main character’s last name to Cobretti. Stallone would later leave the project after Paramount Pictures balked at the increase in budget from Stallone’s rewrite.

Based loosely upon Paula Gosling’s Novel ‘A running Duck’ Stallone wrote ‘Cobra’ about a nihilistic cop who will do anything to take down the bad guys. Directed by George P. Cosmatos, who collaborated with Stallone on ‘Rambo first blood part two’. It is worth noting here that it is rumoured that Stallone ghost directed ‘Cobra’ and ‘Rambo first blood part two’. It would later emerge that ‘Cosmatos’ next picture ‘Tombstone’ was ghost directed by Kurt Russel. Cosmatos being known as a guy who could be used for these services Kurt Russel would later say (about Tombstone) ‘I’d go to George’s room, give him the shot list for the next day, that was the deal. While you’re alive George, I won’t say a goddamn thing.’

‘Cobra’ was green lit with a budget of twenty five million dollars. Produced by Golan and Globus who in the 80s and 90s would shoot out lots of low budget B-movies with varying degrees of success.

Cobra setting is a seedy nihilistic Los Angeles where a ‘new world order’ biker gang is terrorising the general public. The ‘night slasher’, a sadistic serial killer trawls the streets in search of his next quarry. When we join the movie he is about to murder his sixteenth victim, mutilating her body using a razor sharp knife. Cue ‘Cobra’ a tough detective heading the ‘Zombie squad’, an extreme splinter group of the LAPD who shoot first and ask questions later, is tasked with finding and eliminating the ‘night slasher’.

When Ingrid played by Brigitte Nielsen is brutally attacked on her way home from a fashion shoot she comes under the protective watch of ‘Cobra’. That is essentially the movie plot wise.

Viewed now over thirty years later, Cobra is extremely dated. Filled with cheesy one-liners and choppy editing. It is, however, fast paced coming in at a lean 87 minutes. There is a great performance by Brian Thompson who plays the ‘night slasher’. He is a sadistic and menacing presence. The attack on ‘Ingrid’ in an LA hospital a particular highlight.

The original cut of the movie was rumored to be two hours ten minutes long featuring lots of bloody violence. Cut down to a more reasonable 90 minutes and the MPAA insisted that more cuts happen to secure a coveted ‘R’ rating and not the proposed ‘X’ rating. It is definitely a movie that suffers badly from being overly edited. Scenes are haphazardly put together with a lot of sudden cuts when anything violent appears on screen. Continuity errors are frequent and puzzling. Coherency sabotaged for run-time and the misguided belief that being an hour and a half will ensure more cinema viewings.

Some of the action scenes were interesting but again they suffer from poor editing decisions, haphazardly chopping away at any potential coherency and tension. Which is a shame as it could have been another type of ‘Mad max’. You can easily see that movie as being an inspiration for the finale and the subsequent biker gang chase.

In the end it becomes rinse and repeat with biker gangs dying theatrical deaths in very similar ways. ‘Cobra’ using his ‘Jeti-Mati’ automatic weapon slicing down one gang member after the next. I would argue that a cut with more of the violence intact would have made for a better viewing experience. As it stands the movie is part slasher movie part action movie with a tiny bit of romance tacked on to it.

Stallone for the most part revels in this persona delivering a cool, cold performance. It is clearly his movie, front and centre like Dirty Harry. Every other character is thrown into the background, which given some of the poor dialogue isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It’s a shame Warner Brothers didn’t accept the b-Grade aesthetics and embrace more of the violent, sleazy elements.

Still, for a movie which garnered six Razzie awards it did quite well taking in an estimated $160 million at the box office. For a while a sequel was planned but this was abandoned. Stallone recently hinted at a reemergence so maybe an older ‘Cobra’ may eventually hits the screens in future.

Be social Follow us!

We need to talk about Kevin movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
Kevin’s mother struggles to love her strange child, despite the increasingly dangerous things he says and does as he grows up. But Kevin is just getting started, and his final act will be beyond anything anyone imagined.”

— Imdb

We need to talk about Kevin is a strange movie. At times engaging, effective and dramatic and others drifting aimlessly almost dream-like in structure. How far you are willing to suspend your disbelief will ultimately determine what you get out of the movie. There was a poignant, moving story to be told which is only partially delivered.

Directed by Lynne Ramsey (you were never really here) in a split time narrative, choosing to dole out what in real terms is a very straight forward simplistic plot line in bite sized chunks spanning 18 years. This fractured timeline hops into random slots of time deliberately trying to add weight to the story. This approach doesn't always work, favouring lingering looks into the drawn face of Eva (Tilda Swinton), a (apparently) famous travel writer and stressed mother of Kevin who really didn't want him in the first place. His presence a burden to her life, she tries desperately to cling to the past refusing to properly engage with her infant. Brilliantly illustrated by the scene where Eva walks to a construction site to try to mask her son's incessant crying with Jack hammers and drilling.

She senses, as does the audience, that there is something very wrong with Kevin. Only when he gets older do we realise by how much. It’s obvious that Kevin is intelligent, manipulative even. A willful little child who deliberately refuses potty training insisting on nappies until he is nearly six or seven (It is never expressly said in the movie). Understandably this would ware on any parent. Eva cracks and throws her child against a wall, breaking his arm. At this point you could easily start to disbelieve that any parent would allow a child to manipulate them in this way without seeking help from professional services.

There is a sense sometimes of the movie being more style over substance. The deliberate use of red and yellow. There is barely a scene in the movie that doesn’t feature either colour prominently or as a feature within the frame. Some instances are very in your face. when Eva - in the present time before the incident - is shopping and she sees a parent that she doesn’t want to see her she scurries around an aisle standing fearful in front of endless rows of red labelled Campbell soup. It is a mechanism to suggest death and foreboding of things to come. Indeed the opening sequence features Eva surrounded by a sea of red, writhing bodies while on one of her ‘adventures’.

It is a little bit of subterfuge as there is scant meat on the bones, only scratching at the surface implying lots but saying very little. There was plenty of opportunities to delve into the mindset of Eva or Kevin but we only get surface details. Indeed it is perhaps missing a scene that the title suggests ‘we need to talk about Kevin’ which never happens not even between Eva and her feckless Husband Franklin (John C Reilly). The surrounding characters are there just to fill a scene or react to Eva’s machinations about Kevin.

In this regard the reactions of both parents are reckless and misjudged. No more fitting than when Kevin buys twenty bike locks ‘online’. Not once did they question it. Not even the cynical Eva. Which plays absurdly unrealistic given what had occurred previously - her second child losses an eye and the hamster squeezed into a trash compacter at the hands of Kevin. As played in the movie, Eva is a very hard character to be sympathetic to even though she is a tragic character; the steely androgenic gaze off putting and stern. Her actions personifying that not all people should be parents.

When the final tragic incident occurs it is shown off-screen - indeed the director has opted to not show any violence onscreen - I would argue that the scene would have been more powerful had we witnessed this in greater detail as it stands it is shown in muted flashback as Kevin draws his arrows to fire.

While an interesting subject matter, ultimately the movie is more concerned in delivering pretentious notions than hard hitting drama. It could have been a sucker punch to the gut. In the end it only slightly delivers on that score.

*** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Ad Astra movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
Astronaut Roy McBride undertakes a mission across an unforgiving solar system to uncover the truth about his missing father and his doomed expedition that now, 30 years later, threatens the universe.”

— Imdb

Where do I begin with reviewing the movie Ad Astra? In terms of plot it is quite simplistic. Roy Mc Bride (Brad Pitt), a troubled yet stern Astronaut must embark on a mission to find his father, who thirty years previously, set out into space to find other sources of life on distant planets. The ‘Lima Project’, a top secret mission pioneered by H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), the golden boy of the space programme, long thought to be dead until mysterious energy fields begin destroying life on earth.

It’s an interesting premise hampered somewhat by unnecessary ‘on point’ voice over, messy plot contrivances and an unconvincing world. Undoubtedly the core underlying meaning of the movie is about the damaged son chasing after the neglectful father in the hopes that they can reunite after thirty years of absence, to seek answers from him to why he chose to abandon him. In this you also see that the son is doomed to repeat the mistakes of his father if he continues down this road. The other being the chase for something better ‘out there’ and in the process taking everything for granted including our loved ones at the cost of our humanity. It is a nice sentiment and one the world definitely needs right now.

But it is hidden within a messy plot where you never really get on board with what’s happening on screen or fully grasp the world created. It’s intentionally sterile to the point where it literally sucks the tension out of the movie. There was potential for the movie to be exciting and engaging as well as tell a meaningful story. But it misses the mark. Personally, I felt the voice over for the most part didn’t work. It was very on point telling you, the audience, what exactly was happening on screen. In one instance Brad Pitt actually says ‘I’m on my way to Jupiter’ just in case you missed that plot point. Not that Brad Pitt is bad in it, far from it, he is excellent. A really understated performance. But he is really the only character that stands out, the supporting cast is completely secondary coming across as one dimensional ciphers just so Pitt has ‘something’ to react to.

The other niggling aspect was some of Brad Pitts dialogue which hammered home, quite literally, how the character was feeling telling us at one point, travelling for 80 plus days to reach Jupiter ‘I’m so alone’ - just in case the subtext was lost on the viewer his chosen hermetic workaholic lifestyle has created a ‘loner’ separating himself from his loved ones - it is reinforced with flashbacks to him and his wife drifting apart. I would argue the audience would have gotten that idea without the inclusion of this clunky dialogue.

One of the aspects I found interesting was the trip to the moon and the fact that there is a ‘war’ raging on it where Pirates are ravaging resources for their own personal gain. This is never really explored at all which is a shame as it was one of the more fascinating ideas in the movie. Not to say that it fits into the story. It doesn’t. Sticking out like most of the action scenes. Perhaps studio interference responsible to try to punch up the story.

It is probably worth mentioning about the messy/implausible physics displayed in most of the movie. I could get on board with most of it bar three glaringly bad scenes: 1. The race to catch a rocket to Jupiter where Brad Pitt with ten seconds to launch manages to climb onto the rocket and somehow hold on as the rocket is propelled at 18,000 miles per hour climbing into a hatch at the base of the rocket. 2. Brad Pitt ‘surfing’ on a piece of metal trying to get back to his rocket near the end of the movie blasting through a debris field of rocks without being thrown off trajectory in the slightest. 3. Stopping for SOS call in space. Again the rocket was traveling at a tremendous speed so stopping without any reference on a whim seems very unrealistic. It’s worth pointing out that the rockets seemed like they we’re from our time and not in any way modernised/updated.

It is these implausible plot points that really let the movie down such as Tommy Lee Jones who is a very fine actor but I could never, not for one instant, believe he would be capable of surviving space flight - he looked old in his thirties never mind now in his seventies. Not withstanding that the movie is in long stretches actually quite boring. There was potential there but it is sterile, working in service of pretentious notions in love with the idea of meaning, to the detriment of story, character and an engaging plot.

Overall it was disappointing, I really wanted to like the movie and I could see the potential in it but it fell short.

** & 1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Hustlers movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Inspired by the viral New York Magazine article, Hustlers follows a crew of savvy former strip club employees who band together to turn the tables on their Wall Street clients.”

— imdb

Inspired by real life events of a group of strippers who during the crash embark on a spree of mass drugging and larceny of their male clients. Constance Wu plays ‘Destiny’ a down on her luck girl who must work endlessly to pay her bills and look after her grandmother. When Ramona played by Jennifer Lopez takes her under her wing they concoct a scheme to rob sleazy bankers of money. In a nut shell that’s the entire movie. It is primarily set in the sordid confines of a strip club called ‘Moves’ where every male character, bar one perhaps (maybe, at a stretch), are depicted as degenerate scumbags ripe for manipulation by these female ‘hustlers’ who despite working hard are treated abysmally by the system. But that doesn’t entirely ring true.

Framed as a type of female ‘Robin hood’ stealing from the rich, ‘Hustlers’ is an odd choice for critics to tout as empowering to women. With Robin hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor you at least got the sense that his actions where for the benefit of all which showed a moral compass of sorts. In this the ladies are hardly morally right desperately playing out one con after the next to feed a need for material wealth.

The movie has a very rinse and repeat formula. Once you’ve seen one ‘hustle’ you’ve seen them all. Despite some nice photography there is a sense of over glamorising something that isn’t all that glamorous. It’s gritty and dirty, a chance to be a voyeur in the detritus. Adding a touch of ‘Goodfellas’ copying to the mix that feels a slight reach too far.

Constance Wu’s acting was a little weak especially the start of the movie. She just didn’t seem comfortable in the role as stripper. The fast cut editing and sloppy dialogue did her no favours either.

In the simplest terms It’s a female friendship movie that we have seen countless times before wrapped loosely in a heist aesthetic. To say its complex isn’t accurate, I would say the characters are very one dimensional. We never really get to know Ramona. Destiny played by Wu fairs a little better but it’s still all surface. We have a climax that feels somewhat anticlimactic. It was missing that bite that it very much needed. An ending that warranted the the two hour run time. But we don’t get that, the movie drips to a lazy conclusion. In the end I was confused about what movie critics actually watched. It seems like they we’re more interested in progressing some political agenda than actually critiquing the movie. The same could be said about the filmmakers themselves. Which is a shame as story and character should be king.

The hustlers are depicted as glamorous almost enticing, something you should aspire to and never really treated in a negative light. There are shades of grey but these are mostly discarded in favour of a view of positivity and supposed female power. At the end of the day they we’re con artists and thieves definitely no better than the bankers they stole from yet the filmmakers want you to love them - their actions were abhorrent; perhaps even willing to kill for one more chance to make it rain under the guise of feminism and revenge. This revelation is treated so lightly for fear you may actually start to hate these women. It would have been far braver of the filmmakers to cast them in a negative light then you would have had balance. As it stands there is no balance, instead they are shown positively. Two wrongs apparently make a right in this skewed version of the world. ‘Man hating’ in vogue now as the new form of feminism.

In the end there was no tension each ‘con’ the same as the last - treated lightly in montage for fear the audience may ask moralistic questions of the protagonists. They did a bad deed, were caught: the end. What could have been tension driven ended flat and disjointed.

When all is said and done ‘Hustlers’ isn’t a good movie.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Midsommar movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A couple travels to Sweden to visit a rural hometown’s fabled mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult.”

— imdb

Midsommer is the follow up feature film from writer/director Ari Astor who directed the chilling ‘Hereditory’ last year. Dani (Florence Pugh in a brilliant performance) is a troubled young women, trapped into a cycle of mental abuse by her sister with Bipolar who constantly threatens to end her life via e-mail and text message.

When she actually follows through with her latest threat, taking Dani’s parents along with her in a shocking scene, Dani’s world threatens to fall apart. Relying on an unsympathetic boyfriend Christian played astutely by Jack Reynor, who secretly really just wants to dump her but doesn’t have the heart to do so, to help put her back together. Dani invites herself onto a trip to Sweden that Christian didn’t tell her about to visit a remote village for a few weeks of relaxation and to take her mind off of her woes.

Shot in a very bright and distancing fashion, it Cooley contrasts the vibrant photography to create a quietly unsettling tone. Echoing movies like ‘The wicker man’ we are dropped into a remote cult whose practices are weird and distorted. For a while we are visitors casually witnessing a gradual deception take place. This slow pace could easily polarize viewers. I would say if you prefer your movie going experience to be constantly in your face then this movie isn’t for you. If, however you prefer a slow burn there are weirdly enjoyable moments to be had. The fact that there are genuine scenes of macabre laughter along the way helps a great deal.

Not scary in the slightest, ‘Midsommar’ prefers to play out in a vibrantly unsettling manner. Utilizing a bright summer colour palette of greens and yellows glossing over the darkness hidden within. Its a clever conceit which does hold your attention. I did however feel that most of the characters where disposable, reacting somewhat unrealistically when some of their fellow travel companions begin to disappear. The explanations given by the elder inhabitants are at best suspicious. But maybe that is the point of their characters: selfishness. Certainly I would agree when it comes to the character of Christian who is somewhat self centred and a little devious. The other disappointing aspect is the plot which follows a very predicable line. It left a little feeling of ‘its very pretty to look at but where are the surprises in the plot?’.

Near the end a scene involving a coerced sexual ritual is played for weirdness and laughter. It is a darkly comical scene that had the audience in my screening in fits of laughter. It could have so easily fallen apart but Jack Reynor plays it perfectly, his facial expressions comic gold. I must admit I wasn’t expecting the movie to have any humour in it but I’m happy to say it did.

In the end ‘Midsommar’ isn’t perfect but it is enjoyable. Not for everyone like his previous movie ‘Hereditory’. There are some unexplained details that might confuse some. Taken as a whole it was a little on the long side. If you find slow burn movies a slog then you wont find this movie any different. However, if you enjoy weird goings on with a touch of ‘The wicker man’ then you might enjoy this. I would, however, say don’t expect it to break the mold and necessarily add anything new to that movie trope.

***1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'The Hallow' movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A family who moved into a remote mill house in Ireland finds themselves in a fight for survival with demonic creatures living in the woods.”

— imdb synopsis

Set in contemporary rural ireland, a young couple Adam and Claire move into a disused mill house in the centre of an ancient forest, where Adam (A british conservationist)has been tasked with selecting trees to be felled by a logging company.

During his innitial survey (as a viewer we later discover it’s his third visit) Adam selects trees for felling and stumbles upon an abandoned house where he enters with his infant son strapped to his back. Once inside he happens upon a deer which has been murdered and propped by a wall. Upon closer inspection Adam notices black fungus growths eminating from the skull of the deer and proceeds to take a sample of it. He brings it home and we witness that this fungus seems quite violent in nature.

At this point is where I began to have problems with the movie. Would you bring your infant son near a dead animal which could have died any number of ways and expose him to potential danger? Indeed having seen this fungus dribble down from the ceiling into the babies cot they do nothing about it. This set the scene for any number of idiotic decisions by the parents to randomly leave their child when a hint of danger was called for in the script.

To say that the main protagonists where characters is being generous. As the setup goes you have to guess that Adam is there working for a logging company it is only briefly hinted at and then confirmed in the very last scene of the movie as the credits roll over top of it. It’s difficult to keep your interest when the world of the story isn’t exactly explained clearly.

I can understand the need for mystery and having an ambigious beginning can work but when characters are as wafer thin as these I felt you needed to clarify the world so at least we care enough to watch.

Which is its biggest problem. I just didn’t care. The characters don’t have to be likeable to be watcheable they just have to have ‘character’. Adam is perhaps the worst of the pair, given the most screen time and guilty of being pig headed to the detriment of his own child. That setup would have been interesting if it indeed had have been setup as his character from the get go. As it stands it just comes across as stupidity and totally throws you out of the movie.

When we join them they are in a battle with the strange neighbour who wishes to warn them about the dangers lurking in the forest telling them to ‘stay away’. If the danger was so great why didn’t he say more? Why does he just need to speak to Adam, he could have easily given his warning to Claire. Indeed later on in the movie he presents her with a very elaborate book on the forest including its dangers (Designed very  similarly to the book out of the evil dead). And this is after they have been attacked. Surely you would just up sticks and leave. Especially as there isn’t any compelling case given for them to stay.

Very little makes sense in the world of the movie. Light at one point frightens the creatures away when it is used again they don’t fear it, then at the end daylight kills them. Consistency of its own rules is a problem. The other is the fact that we aren’t exactly told what the creatures are. I’m guessing they are a type of demonic faery when Adam mentions that his own son is a ‘changling’ but that isn’t entirely clear.

The creatures design themselves are quite good. I really liked the fact that most of the effects involving them where practical which made them tangeable and real. The forest location is great and the lighting is suitiably errie. The special effects are quite good too. There are a number of effective set pieces with the creatures so that’s a plus. So the only real flaw is the script.

In the end I just didn’t care. I felt myself bored with the movie as there wasn’t enough there to invest fully in it. Forgiving the familiarity of certain shots borrowed from other better movies, I just couldn’t forgive the motivations of the characters and that alone hurt my enjoyment of it.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Avengers:endgame review

View fullsize

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

SPOILER ALERT: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.

Where do I begin with Avengers:endgame? In a mind numbing(and ass numbing) whopping three hour run time Avengers fails as a thrilling finale (of sorts) to a 22 movie run. I have to admit I found myself more than a little bored with this instalment having enjoyed the previous outing a lot more than this. With stilted dialogue abound and dramatic scenes that aren't entirely earned it quickly becomes a chore to watch. There is a distinct feeling that ‘we’ve see this already before’ about the movie.

Not to say that it’s entirely bad, it’s not. There are some entertaining scenes and Robert Downey junior puts in a good performance since he is given a script that’s a little more weighty than anything in the franchise before. The effects for the most part are really good, although I’m still not entirely convinced about the backgrounds of some of the planets they have a very distinct ‘Green screen’ feel to them that is a little off putting and for a reported 200 million budget should be flawless. But I digress: the good if you are a Marvel fan then you will most probably like the fact that Thor has become an overweight mess who has taken on a look of ‘The dude’ from the big lebowski. Having failed to kill Thanos in the previous instalment of the franchise.

This will lead us neatly onto what is less good about the movie: The ‘one liners’ that fall like a brick in the ocean. Why was there ships parked around the statue of liberty five years after 50% of the population disappeared? Like there is a shortage of housing suddenly. No one about to moor these boats. Doesn’t really make sense and is there just to create a false atmosphere.

A lot of the plot since it doesn’t seem to make much sense arbitrarily setting up a strict time travel narrative and then simply discarding it when an action scene is called for. The returning of the ‘stones’ in said same time travel narrative. The fact that nothing essentially changes when they ‘bring everyone back’ they have knowledge which they wouldn’t have when five years have passed. When the ‘stones’ magically meld with Tony Stark’s suit so that he can use them. The fact that everyone turns up at the end to have a battle with Thanos on earth: How would they know being essentially dead for the past five years? Surely they would be brought back to the original place they died in?

The obligatory eye rolling ‘all female’ super hero moment that includes Pepper Potts as a hero - not that I don’t believe women should have their moment far from it, it just feels like pandering for political reasons rather than built from story it would have been perfectly fine if the women actually had anything to do in the rest of the movie but they don’t - it is a fleeting moment that is tacked on to the end in a last ditch effort for inclusion. Captain Marvel - what was the point of her character? To turn up and destroy Thano’s ship and then be beaten. While we’re on the subject of Thanos in the final battle without the stones he is nigh on invincible taking on all of the avengers and still coming out on top. Yet he was easily taken out at the start of the movie with only three avengers on hand. Again the contrivance to suit the narrative. There is no rules accept those that suit whatever scene comes next. And last but not least we have returning the lost soul stone which required a sacrifice to get in the first place surely that applies to return it? The list goes on and on..

It is the convenience of ‘fitting the narrative’ to suit the situation that is what hurts the movie and makes it less interesting and simply lazy screenwriting. These are all questionable plot holes that are glossed over in deference to an action scene or when something needs to happen.

I’m increasingly surprised (or maybe I shouldn’t) at the critical reviews of these movies. Last year we had Star Wars: The last Jedi which was an abomination of plot contrivances with more plot holes than the average block of Swiss cheese yet it received glowing reviews from most critics stating that the movie ‘subverted expectations’ like this was a good thing yet they glossed over the fact that these ‘subverted expectations’ we’re simply bad writing. They are seemingly afraid to be critical of the Behemoth that is Disney instead opting to review these movies with ‘rose tinted glasses’ glossing over their flaws. Yet these same critics hammer other movies for less egregious errors. It is this inconsistency that paints certain reviewers in a less than pleasing light. No-one is perfect but even the casual viewer has to admit that these movies are far from perfect.

With a reported box office of over two billion, nearly beating Avatar’s world record have the general movie going public succumbed to the fact that these big tent pole movies no longer need to make sense plot wise instead if they contain enough pretty images and explosions they will let anything slide? This is a worrying trend in movies that are making huge amounts in box office receipts. I see lost opportunities for the reported 200 million budget that could have made four 50 million dollar movies that try to tell a cohesive story. These type of movies are increasingly being squeezed out in favour of big tent pole movies. Which is a shame as there should be room for both.

At the end of it all the plot contains too many questions and no real answers instead opting for glossy explosions and a false sense of drama.

* 1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'The silence' movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“When the world is under attack from terrifying creatures who hunt their human prey by sound, 16-year old Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka), who lost her hearing at 13, and her family seek refuge in a remote haven.”

— imdb

Recently netflix have been doing more and more original content. With varying degrees of success, some better than others but all, at least, with an emphasis on content that you wouldn’t see a major movie studio investing money, especially not in this climate of comic book movie overkill. Its a least refreshing to see a studio investing in other material that isn’t cartoony comic book superhero extravaganza. An adult orientated adventure where there could be genuine stakes and not a falseness primed on the possibility of a ‘reboot’ if they don’t hit the ‘right demographic’.

In truth, their brave decisions don’t always work out. And this is the case with ‘The Silence’. An intriguing premise that actually pre-dates the far superior ‘A quiet place’. Some have said that netflix have copied a format that worked when in reality they were working from a book by Tim Lebbon called ‘the silence’ Released in 2015. So it begs the question of who was copying who here. The setup almost identical even down to a girl who is deaf and a family in jeopardy from blind creatures that hunt by hearing alone.

Without trying to spoil anything I will say that there are some effective scenes namely one where a car is parked on a side road. But the main problem here seems to be the fact that Director John R. Leonetti hasn’t embraced the material. A potential for scares and tension that ‘ A quiet place’ mastered. It didn’t help that the creatures in ‘The silence’ where a type of hybrid bat that wasn’t set up in a frightening way. They seemed far too simple to kill. Setting aside the obvious plot holes or the fact that we didn’t really get to know the main protagonists aside from their limited family dynamic, the plot just didn’t really engage.

The start had potential and they could have gone in a number of different directions (I haven’t read the book so I can’t say whether this closely mirrors the plot of the source material) instead taking it down a tired path that held very little tension. With, at times, some very shoddy CGI creatures and potential setup that didn’t result in a satisfying conclusion we have a feature film that has potential but falls flat and lifeless.

The ending where they meet a group of religious fanatics, again had potential but how that concludes was just as unsatisfying and worst still irritating because it just.. well ends on a weird abrupt note. Three or so minutes later and we have an epilogue that feels rushed and out of place. Either they ran out of money or the screenwriter had sequel squarely in his mind. Either way potential ruined. There could have been hints of ‘The road’, a harsh climate where having a family is dangerous in itself.

But that isn’t the case we are instead delivered a type of B movie with quite large plot holes. Not that ‘A quiet place’ didn’t have plot holes either, it did. There was just enough ingenuity and tension to suspend your disbelief so you could get on board with the story. It also help immensely that you actually got to know the family in the movie. In this, the criminally under utilised Stanley Tucci is hand cuffed into a nothing role where he is given very little bar a few minor scenes to play with.

In the end ‘The Silence’ is a pale photocopy of ‘A quiet place’ where the original stands head and shoulders above it in execution. Which is a shame really as the story had potential.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.